So... how would you source doujin scans? Using the convention it came from (C90 for example) doesn't seem like a viable option according to Evazion. But what else can you do, then?
Posted under General
I'm doing it this way when I have something from e-hentai or comparable pages: Downloading the file and use the URL as the source, for example:
http://g.e-hentai.org/g/1009180/f323947037/
Hoobajoob said:
e-hentai isn't a valid source, though. topic #11093
Listing other repost sites as a source is both erroneous and defeats the purpose of listing sources. It would be like listing danbooru as the source for a picture when you can't find it's real source.
I'm on evazion and Provence's side. Nowhere does it say e-hentai isn't a valid source. It is as much a valid source. The source field exists to find wherever you discovered a post, not to be pedantic about the name of things. That's what pool titles are for. You create the pool with the doujin title as it's name. That being said, sure they can be interchangeable (like if I sourced something from Comic Anthurium Digital and don't bother listing the original source, could have bought it myself or pirated) but I would rather have a URL than a title.
And that brings me to another point -- what about scanned works? How do you differentiate between where a badly scanned source comes from from a better scanned source if they're both technically scans? What if the two get mixed up together?
There should be some sort of a guideline on it, but just saying "e-hentai isn't a valid source" or "Listing other repost sites as a source is both erroneous and defeats the purpose of listing sources." is basically ignoring the huge number of images we source from other boards such as yande.re, of whom we have more than 10k entries sourced from there. Why? Because their imageboard community is primarily based on high quality anime artwork scans from illustration books and the like. The source field exists so people know you're not just pulling images out of thin air. A URL should be preferred above all else.
MB295 said:
So... how would you source doujin scans? Using the convention it came from (C90 for example) doesn't seem like a viable option according to Evazion. But what else can you do, then?
I'm of the mindset that if you didn't scan it yourself, then link to the source where you found it. Actually, the only case I would be extremely skeptical of that I can think of right now is listing torrent sites/trackers as sources. Then in which case I would use the scanner or scanner group's name if available. Mikocon, for example.
In the case that you did scan it yourself, then I'd say either leave the source field blank or put in "Self Scan", something akin to that. But I think there could be clearer guidelines about it.
Relating to the discussion on the previous page, another good tool for finding sources is: https://ascii2d.net/
Also, a tip that I don't remember myself nearly often enough: If you can't find matches anyway, try flipping the image left-to-right and searching on that. It's a pretty common manipulation but a lot of image searches don't catch it.
Mikaeri said:
In the case that you did scan it yourself, then I'd say either leave the source field blank or put in "Self Scan", something akin to that. But I think there could be clearer guidelines about it.
In this situation I'd prefer if people manually wrote in where they got it from (eg. the name and edition of the magazine etc.) as that is where you are getting the image from and it gives info for anyone who wants to trace down the image for any reason. Just putting "self scan" is meaningless.
kuuderes_shadow said:
In this situation I'd prefer if people manually wrote in where they got it from (eg. the name and edition of the magazine etc.) as that is where you are getting the image from and it gives info for anyone who wants to trace down the image for any reason. Just putting "self scan" is meaningless.
I suppose so, then. I'm just throwing it out there, since I did say titles and sources are interchangeable.
But it still raises the potential problem of how to differentiate between scanned and/or digital sources of the same thing -- say a grainy scan of some magazine was upped first (as an uploader's personal scan), and then a better one was added later (as another personal scan or digital, where no URL is provided). Sure we can parent them, but I think the source should indicate too where something comes from. That way we can deduce "oh, x uploader scans his own stuff and it's usually better than y uploader who does the same thing." That being said, I do agree this is a very slim edge case, as I'd say the good majority of uploaders curate from other sites -- we don't focus on scans very much.
Just my 2c, although i'm okay with it going either way.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Coincidentally, the SauceNao extensions include both IQDB and GIS as search options, among a few others...
But a wiki page could be useful... perhaps help:source finding...?
Provence said:
Would be great.
With that, we can remove a bit "junk" from the howto:upload wiki and make it less bloated.
So I agree with creating such a wiki.
☆♪ said:
Relating to the discussion on the previous page, another good tool for finding sources is: https://ascii2d.net/
Also, a tip that I don't remember myself nearly often enough: If you can't find matches anyway, try flipping the image left-to-right and searching on that. It's a pretty common manipulation but a lot of image searches don't catch it.
Just found out that the wiki Help:Reverse Image Search already exists...
The more you know... (ツ)
We do, but it's only linked in howto:upload in this passage:
If you only have a low quality image e.g. from a third party page that contains watermarks or compression artifacts you should use a Reverse Image Search Engine to find the original image or at least a higher quality version.
and
- If you don't know the image's source anymore (e.g. it's a file you saved to your computer in the past) you can try to use a Reverse Image Search Engine to find the source of the image.
Maybe we could make it a bit more clear by revising the page a bit? I feel like a new bigger passage could go under something like "uploading" with subsections named "uploading directly from your computer" and "uploading using the bookmarklet" because we have these big sections:
Danbooru Quality: Posting Guidelines
Danbooru-specific Criteria
The Creed of the Danbooru Contributor
Uploading One's Own Art is Sacrilege
Err on The Side of Caution
Danbooru is Subjective
Aftercare for Uploads
It could go right before "Aftercare for Uploads".
Also I'm still for having a page that is specifically aimed towards finding source, since it can be more than just RIS: searching https://www.doujinshi.org/, for example.
Mikaeri said:
Also I'm still for having a page that is specifically aimed towards finding source, since it can be more than just RIS: searching https://www.doujinshi.org/, for example.
Doujinshi.org is already one of the sources for finding the source as listed on help:reverse image search.
Also, I'd be much more in favor of renaming that wiki to make it more general sounding rather than create a new wiki. Any methods used for finding images, even if they aren't reverse image search engines, could go on that page then.
So, to summarize what we've got right now:
1. If you download an image from a source right before you upload this image, one should give a source.
2. If you have an image file that is "old", one should use one of those tools that will be mentioned in the wiki.
3. If that doesn't help: Source_request
4. Other reposting pages, like yande.re or g.e-hentai.org are also "valid" sources.
5. If the source is from a Doujin, then one should create a pool with the name of the doujin or mention it in the comment/copyright
5.1. If it is a game cg, then one should put the name of the game in the copyright tag and a source where one have found this image or use step 2 and 3.
Maybe this still need to be discussed in some ways. Anyways, I could live with that.
Changed the wiki to Help:Image Source, and updated Howto:Upload with the new link.
I filled out what I could, although the "Other Catalog Sites" could use some more information.
Also included a section for Self Scans, although I didn't know what to put there.
I really keep wondering..wouldn't it be easier to just link a suitable source, like g.e-hentai when you upload Doujins or Game CGs? One could write it into the copyright or artist field and say: "If you want to see more go searching with this". But shouldn't Danbooru be as direct as possible which means: Give direct source to the galleries? Especially for Game CGs, because they contain a huge amount of posts and not everything gets uploaded anyway. Maybe because the uploader didn't like the other posts in that gallery.
And is this help:image_source now an "official" Danbooru wiki? Because if so, then some people and probably also moderators should take a look at this. Maybe because it is too strict (because bad sourcing might end in a neutral/negative feedback) or maybe there is missing something, but shouldn't be mentioned.
I disagree with that. Wherever you sourced it means wherever you sourced it. It could be your own purchase, or it could be from a site you don't want to link to for some reasons aforementioned (torrent sites, piracy sites, etc).
This is really up to the discretion of the uploader, some uploaders have a habit of just not listing the source just because it's been so long that they don't know where they pulled the image from anymore. Their filesystem usually doesn't keep track of it either -- it's not completely their fault, if at all.
If we make it such that sourcing is paramount -- albeit yes, sourcing is VERY VERY IMPORTANT -- then it would drive off other users who potentially have good uploads but are afraid they can't provide a source. I say that if you know where your upload comes from (whether it's Game CG or a fanbook/fandisc) then go ahead and list the title verbatim, but be as descriptive as you can in it. Meaning list the original title, and maybe if it's a DL版 (digital edition) or possibly whatever website you bought it from (e.g. DLsite).
What we should make more clear though, is sourcing uploads PROPERLY. Meaning if you found it off your hard drive, you should know how to find a better version of it with the tools in help:image source and the like. In that manner, you'll be 1: able to provide the best version of your image, and 2: actually provide a source for your image in the first place.
So you are suggesting that downloading an image from like g.e-hentai (or would we get legal issues if we source from there :P?) and then not linking to this page is absolutely fine, although you just did the download from there? Why?
This is really up to the discretion of the uploader, some uploaders have a habit of just not listing the source just because it's been so long that they don't know where they pulled the image from anymore.
vs.
What we should make more clear though, is sourcing uploads PROPERLY. Meaning if you found it off your hard drive, you should know how to find a better version of it with the tools in help:image source and the like. In that manner, you'll be 1: able to provide the best version of your image, and 2: actually provide a source for your image in the first place.
Contradiction? If there are such possibilities, then yes, one should use one of the options listed there, even if it was for a pretty long time. If nothing can be found, then source_request.
And off course giving feedback means tha they have a complete habit of never tagging their uploads, although they have the options listed above. And giving feedback isn't that easy, probably. Maybe writing a first DMail would help better, especially because not sourcing might lead to misunderstanding between the uploader and the one who's complaining :P.
Provence said:
So you are suggesting that downloading an image from like g.e-hentai (or would we get legal issues if we source from there :P?) and then not linking to this page is absolutely fine, although you just did the download from there? Why?
Contradiction? If there are such possibilities, then yes, one should use one of the options listed there, even if it was for a pretty long time. If nothing can be found, then source_request.
And off course giving feedback means tha they have a complete habit of never tagging their uploads, although they have the options listed above. And giving feedback isn't that easy, probably. Maybe writing a first DMail would help better, especially because not sourcing might lead to misunderstanding between the uploader and the one who's complaining :P.
Wherever you sourced the image is wherever you sourced the image -- be the most accurate about it. I know you're selfish about wanting to know where the grapevine leads, but in cases like these when someone doesn't provide a source such as game CG, they could have just torrented it and then uploaded some of the original files. Yes, it may just lead to legal issues -- you never know. Do you know about Wani magazine? They're the publishers for some of the biggest Hmanga magazines in the industry, namely comic x-eros and comic kairakuten among other things. But their galleries are regularly purged on sadpanda because they're against the site rules after they decided to legally threaten many major sites (sadpanda being one of them). If such an image was sourced to there and the link was a redirect (gallery was purged, etc) then it's essentially NG. And again, let's not get started on listing torrent or piracy sites as sources.
And no, it is not a contradiction. It is the status quo that sourcing is highly recommended but it isn't paramount. Builders who upload without source often? Yeah sure, give them a Dmail or then a neutral if the source was easy to find through a quick SauceNAO or GIS. But if they were somewhat accurate about it (such as a link to the post on yande.re) then it's fine. Actually, I'm still mystified by where post #1754433 came from -- it's probably from an official artbook somewhere that CodeKyuubi torrented or downloaded from God knows where, but I'm not going to put in any more manhours than I need to finding it.